9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 158 - HC - GSTDirection to respondent to restore the petitioner's GST Registration - HELD THAT - It appears that the present issue was already covered by the judgement of this Court in TVL. SUGUNA CUTPIECE CENTER VERSUS THE APPELLATE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) (GST) , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CIRCLE) , SALEM BAZAAR. 2022 (2) TMI 933 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that ' The petitioners are directed to file their returns for the period prior to the cancellation of registration, if such returns have not been already filed, together with tax defaulted which has not been paid prior to cancellation along with interest for such belated payment of tax and fine and fee fixed for belated filing of returns for the defaulted period under the provisions of the Act, within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if it has not been already paid.' This Court is inclined to allow this petition. While allowing this petition, it is made clear that if the petitioner is liable to pay any tax or penalty, he is required to pay the same in accordance with law - the impugned order is set aside - petition allowed.
Issues involved: Challenge to proceedings dated 01.02.2023 and restoration of GST Registration.
Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the proceedings dated 01.02.2023 and sought restoration of GST registration. The Government Advocate representing the respondent acknowledged the case. The main writ petition was taken up for disposal at the admission stage with the consent of both parties. 2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue was previously addressed in a judgment by the court in W.P.No.25048 of 2021 dated 23.09.2021, where a similar writ petition was allowed. Therefore, the petitioner requested the same outcome in this case. 3. In response, the respondent's counsel suggested that considering the circumstances, an appropriate order should be passed by the court. After hearing arguments from both sides and examining the available materials, the court noted that the issue had indeed been covered by a previous judgment of the court in W.P.No.25048 of 2021. 4. The court referred to the judgment dated 23.09.2021 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which extended the limitation period for various legal actions. The court highlighted the importance of allowing individuals to file fresh applications for revocation of the cancellation of registration under GST laws. 5. The court emphasized that the intention behind the GST laws was to facilitate compliance and not to exclude or prevent individuals from rejoining the GST system. Excluding individuals from the GST regime would lead to revenue loss and defeat the purpose of tax collection. 6. The court concluded that there was no benefit in keeping petitioners out of the GST system and that preventing them from reviving their registration would only lead to revenue leakage. The court decided to quash the impugned orders and directed the respondent to restore the petitioner's GST registration. 7. It was clarified that if the petitioner was liable for any tax or penalty, they would need to settle it according to the law. The writ petition was allowed, the proceedings dated 01.02.2023 were set aside, and the respondent was instructed to restore the petitioner's GST registration.
|
